Aquatic ape hypothesis - Psychology Wiki
The deeper pelvis eventually led to frontal sex as the preferred pose, and the corresponding loss of reliable female orgasms. (I think aquatic life is the best candidate for triggering the change to frontal sex, because all mammals that copulate in water do so face to face, but this could conceivably happen simply from bipedalism.) Frontal sex worked better because the buttock/pelvis shape and slippery hairless bodies made rear-entry sex too precarious. In frontal sex, both parties can hold on.
Aquatic ape hypothesis - Revolvy
The argument for the Aquatic Ape Theory was based mainly on facts of comparative anatomy. Humans differ from apes in a surprising number of ways. The features distinguishing them are far more varied than the features dividing other pairs of species which are so closely genetically related. This suggests that the split with the apes was either occasioned by, or closely followed by, a drastic change in habitat and way of life. Many of the unique human features remain unexplained in terms of the orthodox paradigm, so that 150 years after Darwin there is still no agreed explanation of why we are bipedal or why we lost our body hair or why we have such fat babies, or why we can speak while apes cannot.
In female apes, orgasm is linked to the vagina’s position just under the belly, close to the pubic bone. The angle/orgasm link is primarily due to female masturbation styles, and is related to “deep touch” sensitivity. When we switched to frontal sex, the vagina changed angle, swinging away from the pubic bone and aligning back near the spine, matching the angle of the incoming penis. The penis no longer could hit the “G” spot, and women lost the reliable orgasms that a hundred million years of mammalian evolution had given them every right to expect.
The aquatic ape theory suggest that the main reason why we differ ..
The reviews of my last book were guarded but this time not dismissive. The professional journals maintain almost unbroken their policy of avoiding any mention of the aquatic hypothesis, but on the whole I have come to find that silence reassuring. If AAT ever ceased to be regarded as beyond the pale, 99% of anthropologists would be able to say “Personally, I always felt it had a lot going for it,” and no one would be able to contradict them.
SAGE Reference - Aquatic Ape Hypothesis
The only environments known to give rise to naked are aquatic and subterranean
Actually human hair covers most of the body, but much of the hair on the body is short and generally thin.
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis - Term Paper
The claim that "the only environments..." is a way that aquatic ape proponents dishonestly try to make a statement without saying just what mammals they are comparing us to, because they really don't like pointing out that they are comparing us to whales and serenia (dugongs and manatees), which are highly specialized aquatic mammals which have been fully aquatic for many tens of millions of years, which cannot live outside water, and which, like seals, have highly specialized skin which is very different than ours.
Read this essay on Aquatic Ape Hypothesis
The statement about aquatic mammals here is possibly true, but I haven't seen it shown to be true -- Elaine Morgan claimed this (ignoring the fact that aquatic mammals such as seals and whales actually exhale before diving, collapsing their lungs -- the oxygen for their dives is held in their blood, which is radically different than ours).
The Aquatic Ape Theory - Skeptoid
And although the statement you made has been made for years now (and has been corrected, at least by me, for over a decade) the original paper that found this fact also mentioned very clearly that this is not something unique to humans or to aquatic mammals.